G.R. No. L-48376-85 May 22, 1982
Balagtas Realty Corporation, petitioner, vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Pasay City, Burt Raymond, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Balagtas Realty Corporation filed separate complaints for illegal detainer against several tenants for failure to pay rentals and to vacate the premises. The Pasay City Court rendered a joint judgment ordering the tenants to vacate, pay rental arrears, and pay a monthly rental of P2,000.00 from May 1, 1976, until they vacate, plus liquidated damages. The tenants appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). To stay execution, they filed a notice of appeal and posted supersedeas bonds covering the adjudged amounts, including rentals accruing up to January 1977, which the City Court approved.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed motions for immediate ejectment execution in the CFI, alleging that the respondents failed to deposit the current monthly rentals of P2,000.00 for the period from February to September 1977, as required by Section 8, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. The respondents opposed, claiming they were updated in their deposits. The respondent judge denied the motions for execution, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions for immediate execution despite the respondents’ alleged failure to deposit the current rentals during the pendency of the appeal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CFI order, and ordered immediate execution. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and precise nature of Section 8, Rule 70. This rule explicitly requires an appealing defendant in an ejectment case to deposit the current rentals with the appellate court as they become due, following the rate fixed in the judgment of the inferior court. This deposit is a condition precedent to stay the execution of the judgment for ejectment.
The Court emphasized that the duty to deposit is ministerial and absolute. The respondents could not unilaterally determine a different rental amount to deposit based on their own interpretation or by contesting the City Court’s jurisdiction. Their obligation was to comply strictly with the judgment’s directive to pay P2,000.00 monthly. Their failure to deposit the full amount for the specified period constituted a clear violation of the rule, warranting immediate execution of the ejectment aspect. The Court clarified that such execution would not bar the continuation of the appeal on other aspects, such as the monetary awards. The respondent judge’s denial of the motion, despite evident non-compliance, constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, as it disregarded a clear legal mandate.